Dhimmi: Arabic's origins etc.

Submitted by Motke (Israel), Jun 21, 2019 at 12:24

>
> I suspect that Luxenberg is very correct that
> [...]
> Oh Kees Versteegh? I do not believe him
> [...]
> You need to read Wansbrough's views on the
> origin of Classical Arabic

I Looked up all the authors/books you mentioned. I'm planning to read them. (I also wrote down, somewhere, the book you mentioned while discussing خليفة.)

>
> It is as per Peters "text with no context"

(Who is "Peters"?)

> You might be interested in checking this article [...]
> "On Some Insights Gained through an Arabic
> Reading of Epigraphic Tadmuraean Aramaic" by
> Albert H Naccahe [...][...] Ibn Warraq's book

I'll check it out.

(Speaking of studies (Daniel Pipes, I write this to you), I see in the youtube channel of Bar-ilan University lectures (in Hebrew only) about Islam/Arabs. I.e., 5 months ago there was a peak in lectures about al-Qardawi.)

>
> In Syriac/Aramaic the word Nahem or ܢܚܡ means
> comfort/raise (the dead or resurrection)
>
> Here is a link to the word in Syriac and Aramaic
> http://www.assyrianlanguages.org/sureth/dosearch.php?searchkey=17693&language=id
>
> So my question is: Is the Hebrew equivalent Nahem?

No. N-ح-M in Hebrew means only "comfort" (and, in the bible, also "regret"; and seldom "avenge").

It does not mean "raise [the dead]", nor any other similar meaning. I double checked this.

So, we've finally found a word not shared by the two languages :-)

(In Hebrew, "resurrection [of the dead]" is /tحiyya/.)

> There is an Arabic root نحم but [...]
> https://www.almaany.com/ar/dict/ar-ar/%D9%86%D8%AD%D9%85/

(Interestingly, it says "صوت المريض من صدره كالأنين". I.e., to moan out of grief. This might be the linkage to Hebrew/Aramaic's "comfort" (or "regret").)

> > "[he is] standing" = /عomed/ (cf. Arabic's عمود)
> > "resurrection" (more common) = /tحiyya/ (cf. Arabic's تَحِيَّة)
>
‎> [عمود] means column and it does not mean standing [...]
‎> تحية in Arabic means greetings not resurrection [...]

(Sure. "cf" doesn't mean "equal". تحية is the masdar of حَيّا (wazn II), also meaning "to keep alive" (besides "to greet"). Whether people actually use this word in this meaning is irrelevant.)

>
> remember that Muhammad and his God believe that
> the Jews and Christians corrupted their books

BTW, it's possible that early Muslims didn't mean to say that the text itself was corrupted, but that is was misinterpreted:

https://www.judaism-islam.com/islam-teaches-torah-is-corrupted-tahrif-but-what-does-that-mean/

> > But what about "donkey" and "wine"? These words
> > are pronounced about the same, so what is the
> > Talmud complaining about?
>
> Well both words have similar ductus but the short
> vowels make all the difference

Yes, that's the common explanation, which appears in the pages I linked to. But I'm not very satisfied with this explanation. Note the rhetoric:

"Do you ask for
‎ܚܡܪ to ride or ܚܡܪ to drink?
‎ܥܡܪ to wear or ܐܝܡܪ to slaughter?"

Using parallelism was common back then. It makes sense to assume that the type of problem in the 2nd pair (not distinguishing ܥ from ܐ) repeats in the 1st pair (not distinguishing ܚ from another consonant, maybe خ). OTOH, it also makes sense to assume the "common explanation" (not distinguishing between vowels, as you explained yourself), so we'll never know...

> Speaking of the Talmud, the Islamic historical
> tradition and al-mufasereen have never been able
> to explain how did TALMUD Sanhedrin 4:5 is in the Qur'an

It's a pity the Quran didn't quote the whole text,[1] as we might have then seen fewer wars in the world.[2]

(BTW, the Quran doesn't quite plagiarize, as it introduces the [botched] quote with "كتبنا على بني يسرائيل".)

[1] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Mishnah/Seder_Nezikin/Tractate_Sanhedrin/Chapter_4/5

[2] "that no man shall say to his fellow 'my father is greater than your father' [...] not [one person] is like his fellow."

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".